Agree with Louise9. We need to beat Algeria and Slovenia, get away from the underdog, overachiever thing. We beat Portugal in 2002 and tied Italy in 2006, but we were inconsistent and not mature in our approach. This is the time to change that.

G, followed by A are toughest. Sub Swiss miss for Portugal in H and it would be pretty even. Ivory Coast; best African team last time. Perhaps Mexico is poochie the dog, or France when the refs clamp down in the retaliatory pay back. Can see 7 pts. for USA.

I agree with your sentiment and I agree based on the fact that this is a good result for the USA. There were far many more terrible scenarios playing out in my head after those jerks to the south got put in Group A.

However, in all due respect, our most talented defender is facing a serious rehab before June and our achilles heel is defense.

But, with a focused and determined, unafraid effort - the USA can advance and could win the group.

And nothing says winning 2018 bid like thumping the colonial lords in part of the former Kingdom!

This is a good draw. I agree with the early posts. We can and should go through if we are the footballing team we think we are.

I see the most interesting dynamic coming out of the USA, England game is what will USA do with Donovan? Donovan currently plays on the left, but Glen Johnson is a big powerful full back who likes to get forward. (He is the kind of defender that ran us ragged in the Confederations Cup -thanks Maicon.) Therefore, does Bob look to move Donovan up top to aid his backline, or does Bob go positive and keep Donovan on the left hoping that scares Glen Johnson from going forward?

I honestly say we draw against England and win the other two matches, but get second due to England's superior goal difference. Then we shock the world and beat Germany, getting revenge for 2002.

If they don't get their heads filled with the idea that Algeria and Slovenia are pushovers, just as they did with Ghana and Czech Republic, than they can possibly go through.

Posted by: RedDevil1 | December 4, 2009 2:00 PM

True, but Ghana was the fix special to get one African team to next round in 2006, on the last day of the group stage. Ivory Coast got screwed in the last Grupo de muerte, and now they get another. Shameful.

We can't be overconfident, but this is not so bad a draw for us. We can do the business in this group and advance. Come to think of it I say every other group seems balanced here, besides G which is as close to a group of death I've seen in this edition.

Then again, playing European teams outside of Europe is also a good thing.

yeah, if i end up getting invited to some insipid wedding or or briss or anything else except my own funeral on June 12th, i am to have to laugh at the notion. and even if i'm dead, i think i have to find a way to re-animate myself just for those 2 hours.

I think we have as good a chance as we could have. But 93% voting yes? Algeria is the only team in the group that we're clearly better than. Slovenia *won their group* in Euro qualifying; and a Slovenian team half made up of reserves manhandled a US team half made up of reserves just a few weeks ago.

I think the US Confederations Cup team would advance easily; but with both first-choice central defenders questionable, with Davies questionable at best, and no one picking up the defending or scoring slack in recent matches, I don't know how to be so confident.

It's a bad draw for the U.S. They do well against Latin teams by making up for the lack of talent by using strength and speed, Portugal '02, colombia'94, Italy 'o6, Spain and almost Brazil '09 Confederations Cup. Even if they come out of the group, it is Germany and Germany at the WC is the toughest out.

I-270Exit1: Ugh, nice catch. I absolutely hate it when I brainf*rt like that. I still don't think it'll be easy as all that -- not given who we'll be missing, or will just barely be back. But that makes me feel a little better.

hehe,
look at yesterday's comments I posted. I predicted Eng, USA, and slovenia in same group. I think Algeria & Slovenia are strong in their own regions where they are very aware of the certain style of play of their rivals. Outside of that, I think they are weak. According to FIFA rankings, USA is 2nd strongest in this group and should advance.

How could the US ever go into the World f'n Cup feeling ueber confident about their chances in moving through? I have no clue where people are getting the idea that we 'looked past' Ghana and Czech Rep. in '06!?

This is the most favorable draw for the US ever ON PAPER. That said, Algeria is extremely dangerous playing on what is essentially home soil. Any African team will have an advantage. Slovenia just won a (weakish) European qualifying group so that should say enough about their organization.

I can see the stadiums having a similar atmosphere to some of the CONCACAF venues our boys are used to helping a bit. Hard to admit but the European stage made many of our players flounder.

Now all we need is a few hyperbaric chambers to bring back a few key guys and I'm all about this being a coming-out party!

South Africa is certainly not home soil for Algeria. It probably will be for the sub saharan teams but not the north africans. should be a good 1st round for us (as long as some of them get healthy in time and we don't look past algeria and slovenia).

[quietly noticing that nike and espn should be very very happy with our draw]

Neither the Algerians nor the Slovenes are mugs, but the US should squeak through. They won't be scraping any draws with England this time, though. England will be fielding its strongest team in decades.

England have a history of getting lame 1-1 draws against weak opposition in their first group game. But that was then, this is now. England qualified in style, and have been scoring freely in their friendlies, something they don't normally do pre-World Cup. One early goal in the game vs the US, and watch the floodgates open.

Nevertheless, I applaud American efforts to move beyond baseball, the world's dullest team sport.

Agreed on Ekoku. When you see Lalas trying very hard to make the big headline rather than say reasonable things and McManaman mostly focused on light ribbing rather than actual analysis, Ekoku really stood out.

Inzzo79:

I don't buy the idea that all African teams are home teams at all. I think it's ludicrous. If the World Cup was in Colombia or Ecuador, would we see ourselves as a de facto home team? It's roughly the same distance, and the cultures are radically different in both cases. In fact, Algeria will struggle with the language difference more than us.

Also, Slovenia didn't win their group. They came through the playoff against Russia.

***

This group is fortunate to be sure, but a good draw in the World Cup simply means you avoided the group of death. It doesn't mean we're sitting with a bunch of pushovers. Algeria qualified ahead of Egypt, and came through the most high-pressure qualifying situation (a one-game playoff) conceivable. Slovenia beat a Russian team that would give us problems. England qualified with relative ease.

It's a favorable group, sure, but any thoughts of it being easy are naive. I expect us to get through, but I also expect to be absolutely as stressed out as possible during all three games. Let's not forget that the times we got out of the group were all by the skin of our teeth. In 1994, we had only 4 points and got through as a 3rd place team in the old 24 team format; in 2002, we also only had 4 points, and needed Korea to keep their lead against a desperate Portugal. We have a tough team to beat, but winning 2 group games would be new territory for us.

In the last four World Cups the USA had 4, 0, 4, and 1 points. In the Confed Cup, the USA got 3 points. The US has never won two games in group play and has never had a positive goal differential.

I really don't understand the hysteria here that the US will beat Algeria and Slovenia (getting at least 6 pts) and possibly tie England. You can't underrate teams (Slovenia, Algeria) who have already played in a tense playoff to get there.

We need to beat Algeria and Slovenia, get away from the underdog, overachiever thing. We beat Portugal in 2002 and tied Italy in 2006, but we were inconsistent and not mature in our approach. This is the time to change that.

I don't even understand what any of that means. Not to be a richard about it, but that just sounds like the stuff soccer announcers say when they're trying to fill airtime and sound sophisticated.

For all the doomsayers above -- you need to get up on the latest news. Jay DeMerit ia back training with his team and will probably play before the end of the year. Edu is back with his team, but his return to the pitch will wait until January. Both of these guys will be fit and should be in great form when the Cup comes around. It's never certain for a player coming back from an injury like his, but I feel Edu should be fine. The same can be said for Jermaine Jones, who seems to be past his troubles. Davies and Onyewu will not be in peak condition, but there's reason to think both might be available to play. If not, we're going to be deeper than we have been recently. Demerit, Jones, Edu, Bocanegra, Marshall, Cunningham, Findley. The team we bring to South Africa may not be quite as good as the one we brought this past summer, but I think there's a chance it might even be better.

@grubbsl -- there was a post on Ives' site yesterday speculating that the US might go with a 4-3-1-2. I think that could make a lot of sense, especially against England. A midfield with Bradley, Jones and Edu (or maybe Clark or Feilhaber, with Edu on the back line): and Donovan playing behind a front pair, probably Dempsey and Altidore. I would expect Bradley to at least experiment with something like that in next year's friendlies.

As for how we'll do -- my sense is that the USA does pretty well, except that we get beat by the most talented players: the Del Pieros, Fabianos, Rooneys of the world. The good news is that Algeria and Slovenia don't have players with that kind of talent. This draw was phenomenal. The only seed that wouldn't have terrified me was South Africa, so drawing England isn't really much worse than any of the top 7. In the other slots, I think the USA drew the weakest team in each pot. We'll need to win both of those games to secure 2nd place, but I think the team is totally capable of that.

This is the first and maybe only World Cup for most of our life times that will be in Africa. Might have been stretching the home field advantage idea, but I think it's fair to say that African teams will be pulled for by fans from the home continent more than others.

I really don't understand the hysteria here that the US will beat Algeria and Slovenia (getting at least 6 pts) and possibly tie England. You can't underrate teams (Slovenia, Algeria) who have already played in a tense playoff to get there.

Really? Because I grew up in England and I've never seen them optimistic about their team going into a World Cup. In fact the team usually turns in a run of horrible friendly performances in the previous 12 months that crush any optimism going.

For nearly 20 years after English club teams were kicked out of Euro club competition (following the Heysel stadium disaster), they suffered a chronic inferiority complex vis-a-vis Continental play, while the classiest play all came from Holland, France, Italy etc.

But all of that has changed, primarily because EU work rules allowed vast numbers of foreigners into the British league, where their higher level of play rubbed off on the brutish Brits.

In last year's European cup, three of four semi-finalists were English teams. Sure, these teams had foreign players, but (except for Arsenal) they were no longer teams in which all the best players were foreign. Carrick and Ferdinand are key players for Man U, Lampard and Terry for Chelsea, Gerard for Liverpool. England still lacks a world-class striker, but it has an embarrassment of riches at the back, and for the first time in my life, a clutch of great playmaking, goalscoring midfielders who can match any in the world.

The simple fact is that England has improved more since their last meeting than the US has.

It makes perfect sense. The US comes in every year, not as an established, respected soccer nation, but as a spoiler, a team that can overcome a giant like Portugal or Spain, and tie a world champion, but then stumble against organized, middling teams like Poland in 2002 or get trounced by Czech Republic. In order to be respected, we need to be consistent. We need to show that we are no longer just one of the top two teams in Concacaf.

We can't draw Algeria, or fricking lose either. And we need a result against Slovenia.

Fischy. I like that formation. I have been ponder that one myself. The one weakness I see in that formation is that you concede space on the flanks. Not necessarily the deep flanks, but still in range of serving crosses into our box. Rooney is no predator in the air, but England is very good at this method of attack. To run this formation I think we need either a healthly DeMerit or Gooch. DeMerit looks to be on his back which is good. ( I like Spector, but he seems to be a more on a European center back who is good as reading the game and positioning himself well. Gooch and DeMerit are more of the bruising defenders needed for this game.)

With that said I am a huge fan on the 4-3-2-1 formation because it allows for the quickest counter attack. Plus is keeps Dempsey's lack of work ethic at bay (he works had to Fulham but not so much for USA. Though he still demands a starting 11 with his finishing capabilities. Who else do we have who is a consistent score in the EPL?). Also a midfield of Jones, Bradley, and Edu (or Clark) will be extremely tough to break down. All are physically gifted predators. England would not enjoy going against that brick wall. If Davies returns fit, then this formation will scare any team (Especially England, with a slow John Terry and a struggling Rio.)

How does my 401(k) guy put it? "Past performance does not indicate future results." Or prohibit results, for that matter.

Posted by: joedoc1 | December 4, 2009 4:17 PM

That quote is actually used to depress optimism, not inflate it.. Or is your advisor encouraging you to invest in duds when he says that?

I just don't see much of a difference between the US and Slovenia and Algeria except that the US gets to play in CONCACAF and has an easier time of qualifying than in Europe (Slovenia had to beat Russia) and Africa (Algeria had to avoid thrown stones).

Don't misunderstand my pessimism. I will cheer for the US and hope they do well, but sometimes hope is not enough.

@UnitedDemon -- sure, the USA needs to get wins in those games. 3rd place doesn't cut it to advance any more. If we get 4 points, that almost surely means a tie for 2nd, and then it's unpredictable tiebreakers. So, we have to figure on needing 2 wins, or a win and 2 ties. What I meant is that I think it's meaningless cliches to talk about team's attitudes and mature approaches. The team -- each team -- is the sum of its abilities and what it does to make best use of those abilities. That's true of every team in every Cup. I expect the USA to try and win -- which I suppose is different than our '90s efforts, where we tried not to lose (which is probably the approach we'll take against England, and it won't work). The USA doesn't play scared the way we did 20 years ago. If that's what you mean by mature, we're already there.

@kenonwenu -- You don't think England has a world-class striker? If you limit world-class to Kaka, Ronaldo, Messi, Ibrahimovic and Eto'o, then you're right. I think at least two-thirds of the World Cup teams would be thrilled to have a striker as good as Rooney.

@inzzo79 wrote "Algeria is extremely dangerous playing on what is essentially home soil."

Ha ha... that's hilarious. Algiers is 200 miles closer to St. Louis than it is to Johannesburg! In fact, there's almost no way to fly from Algiers to South Africa without going through Europe (I think there's one connection through Cairo, maybe). I don't see the whole "continental advantage" thing really applying to Algeria.

fischy, Rooney doesn't actually produce all that many goals. Jermaine Defoe is in top form right now (he scored four goals against Wigan last weekend). If he keeps that up, I wouldn't be surprised to see him leading the line with Rooney in a slightly withdrawn role. England's strikers certainly don't match their outstanding defence and midfield. Keeper is also a traditional weak spot for England (though a strong point of the US).

A lot of England's goalscoring threat in 2010 will come from Gerard and Lampard, perhaps with help from Joe Cole or Aaron Lennon.

I think the English will bend under the pressure of their fans and the media - not just to win, but to boost their chances for hosting WC18. Not to mention Gerrard and Lampard who will be under pressure for their non-performances in 2006. Oh, don't get me wrong, they'll advance. But I think we can get at least a draw from them.

@godpere -- USA has other options that you are seriously underestimating: Findley, Cunningham and Jeremiah White. Also, Davies is saying he'll be ready. I won't underestimate Slovenia or Algeria, but only a jackarse proclaims the USA has no chance. A couple of weeks ago there were huge concerns about our health and depth There have been encouraging reports on several fronts this week -- including Jones, Edu and DeMerit about to return, and Davies' optimistic projection, plus Cunningham's training abroad. The Yanks are taking this very seriously, and I have a lot of confidence they'll come through.

The London Times likes the draw from England's perspective. Here are a couple of quotes:

"A semi-final against Brazil in Cape Town on July 6. How does that sound? Arrogant, for one thing, dangerous for another, but that will suddenly be the least that England expects. Such will be the optimism generated by the gift last night of a group that contains the United States, Algeria and Slovenia — and the promise of an onward journey, if that group is won, that might involve nothing more terrifying than Serbia or Ghana in the last 16 and an eminently beatable France in the quarter-finals.
.
.
.
Within half an hour of the draw’s conclusion, a press release arrived from Ladbrokes, the bookmakers, stating that England’s odds had been “slashed” from 6-1 to 5-1 and they are now second favourites — behind Spain, ahead of Brazil, incredibly — to win the tournament.
.
.
.
No longer an unknown quantity, the US, with players such as Tim Howard, Michael Bradley and Landon Donovan, are an increasingly well-regarded team — No 14 in the Fifa world rankings and impressive conquerors of Spain in last summer’s Confederations Cup — but not a team whom any of the top seeds would have feared. Being drawn with the US was not, in itself, a blessing; there were far weaker teams, such as New Zealand, in the second seeding pot. It was when Algeria, rather than Ivory Coast or Ghana, were drawn from the third pot and Slovenia, rather than France or Portugal, from the fourth that this really began to feel like England’s night."

The draw was about as good as we could have hoped. There really are no bad teams at this level (even NZ will come to play in June).

Discussing players is a bit premature. We have at least half a European season to play and the start of MLS next year before a roster is picked. Will Gooch be ready? Maybe, maybe not. Injuries to someone else? Lets hope not. Maybe there is a kid playing tonight in the college cup that will turn out to be the next scoring sensation at the international level.

With all that said, I think if we come to play like we did in 2002 we'll shock everyone and take the group. 8 years ago we had the heart and limited talent. We're a better team now and just need to show it.

The Red Coats are nothing but a bunch of panty wastes. We'll dispense with them with the ease of mere farmers in Massachusetts.

""On the night of April 18, 1775, General Gage sent 700 men to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia . .

. . . The British moved on to Concord, where a detachment of three companies was engaged and routed at the North Bridge by a force of 500 minutemen. As the British retreated back to Boston, thousands of militiamen attacked them along the roads, inflicting great damage before timely British reinforcements prevented a total disaster. With the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the war had begun.""

Goff, what is with former Post Sports Editor Emilio Garcia-Ruiz? He goes on BBC International at 8 PM DC time on Friday night and concurs with the interviewer's provocative question 'isn't the USA side rubbish?', volunteering that the Yanks aren't very good. He then goes on to refer only to failures of years past rather than to, um, well, for example, that little tourney in South Africa this past summer. He was completely dimissive of the American side. Not even one balancing remark, or comment on the quality of the American side's best players. Really disappointing simplistic and unfair review for a global audience after having been called on to the network to 'represent' an American commentator's view no less. Much more sensible assessment in the Telegraph:

What scares me most about England is Capello. I see him having his team ready to beat us down. I'm not a Bradley hater, but he is not on Capello's level. That said, we have a puncher's chance against anyone. We will have a tougher time coming back if we fall behind as we did too often in qualifying, so it will be important to control pace and get some early chances in each game.

delantero, I probably shouldn't say this, but George Washington would be the first to admit that the US didn't win the Revolutionary War by having better soldiers. Redcoats were generally more than a match for US regulars or militiamen in a stand-up battle - rather like the Americans always beat their Vietnamese enemies in open battle but still lost the war.

dimesmakedollars says: "What scares me most about England is Capello."

I forgot to mention him above, but I agree with this completely. Capello is the best there is, and since he took over, England have been unstoppable. No bad games, not one. That's unheard of for England.
No Capello team is going to choke under pressure. And if they get an early goal - which they often do these days - then look out.

1. This is a very good draw for the USA. It's not the weakest group out there but it's definitely not a group with 2 or even 3 really mighty teams.

2. That said, right now, I don't think our odds of making the knock-out rounds are even 50%. I rate our chances of making the next stage as maybe 35%. Algeria and Slovenia aren't giants. But they're tough teams to play against. We just lost to Slovenia (granted, our reserves against their reserves). But the USA seems to have done the best in the WC when we've played teams where we were the underdogs and the other side (be it Portugal in 2002 or Italy in 2006) underestimated us.

3. The post by someone earlier about the USA mostly getting by with 4 points got it spot on. If the USA were to win 2 matches in the first round, I'd be flabbergasted, stunned--we pretty much don't do that except at sometimes the U17 level--sometimes. We're mostly a side that in our best tournaments gets a tie and finds a way to get a win somehow.

4. Could we advance? Of course we could. And this draw gives us a very good chance. When we play a Brazil or Argentina or Spain, we pretty much not only have to play well but hope they don't bring their "A" game. Not so with this draw. That said, the USA will have to be substantially better than how we've played this year to make the next round. Don't forget--if we match our first round Confed Cup performance in the WC, we would be going home. For the USA to advance we might have to do something we haven't done in modern times: 2 wins in the 1st round.

Folks, I've seen Algeria play, and the US _should_ beat them easily. Something like 2-0 or 3-1. Yes, they beat Egypt 3-1 at home, only lost 2-0 on a goal in crazy late injury time, and then held on to win that crazy playoff in Khartoum (on a wonder goal volley) -- but they're still not that good (and I think Egypt is quite good). I really think that the long and ugly history of Algeria v. Egypt in football came into play, and the Algerians, as underdogs, just rose to the occasion. I think if it had been any other different "African Giant" in their group (like Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, etc.), they wouldn't have advanced. As much as I wish Algeria was a good team, they aren't -- but they played with a ton of heart when they had to.

Goff, what is with former Post Sports Editor Emilio Garcia-Ruiz? He goes on BBC International at 8 PM DC time on Friday night and concurs with the interviewer's provocative question 'isn't the USA side rubbish?', volunteering that the Yanks aren't very good. He then goes on to refer only to failures of years past rather than to, um, well, for example, that little tourney in South Africa this past summer. He was completely dimissive of the American side. Not even one balancing remark, or comment on the quality of the American side's best players. Really disappointing simplistic and unfair review for a global audience after having been called on to the network to 'represent' an American commentator's view no less. Much more sensible assessment in the Telegraph:

Just saw this. Is this joker (Garcia-Ruiz) your boss? What a twit--and not just because he wouldn't be a USA homer. Awful TV presence. He provided very little insight ("England should sail through"). Keep him off the "telly."

Total USMNT hater. It seems odd that we need to look to the English press for balance.

Awesome game in Cville tonight. Wacky deflection to give UVa the lead, followed by lots of Maryland possession but not many chances. Virginia's defense has been outstanding, as was underscored by the saved PK

Random OT observation -- you can see the new Philly stadium from the Amtraks but there is no Amtrak stop in Chester, current or planned. I think it may be possible to take Amtrak to Wilmington and switch to a SEPTA train that would stop a mile from the field.

Since I personally would like to take the train to Philly MLS and WPS games, I would appreciate it if the taxpayers of Southeastern Pennsylvania and/or the USA would build me an Amtrak train station. In time for the 2010 opening. Thanks.

Unless we play much better than we did in qualifying or even in the Fed Cup, England are going to blow our doors off. A 3 or 4 goal margin is not unlikely. Our big wins in big competitions have come against overconfident opponents - Spain being the latest sterling example - and I just don't see that happening here.

That isn't, in itself, all that worrisome to me because I don't think the US would carry that result into winnable games against Algeria and Slovenia.

If England rack up big wins against all three opponents it's a wash. But if they get overconfident, or rest players after two big wins and hand 3 points to Slovenia in the third match, then we could find ourselves in third place on goal difference even if we manage 6 points.

Whoever the opposition, intensity, mental toughness, consistency and creativity is a must for a successful first round. To underestimate any team is wishful thinking. The next friendlies before the start of WC 2010 will determine if the USMNT has the metal to advance. Mediocre performances in the friendlies cannot be tolerated and need to be played with some new faces in order to have better options in player rotation.

Early on someone posted that local youth games need to be cancelled on June 12.
The time change is +7 I believe. So if the game is in the evening live in South Africa, it will be about 3am here, Sunday morning.

As for our chances against England, the odds will be with England. That said, I would rather be the US in this match than England. We know we have potential to beat giants in tournament play (ask Spain), and they know they need to be worried.

dsheaon, i think you've got it backwards; SA is 7 hours AHEAD of us, so the game is going to start at 2.30 PM EST. also, perhaps it's a good thing to get the "difficult" game out of the way right off the bat (a la 2002 vs portugal)?

The English are still better than Americans at two things:
a) speaking English, and
b) playing football
Posted by: kenonwenu
==============

I refer you to the Fox Fan zone show, in which two fans, one from each team, call the match of the week. Watch 20 minutes of that and then revisit your statement that the English speak better that we do.

We fired our guns and the British kept a-coming.
There wasn't as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began a-running
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
HO!

Emilio Garcia-Ruiz wouldn't dare do that on US TV. fischy would bring the torches, Joe Doc the pitchforks, and we'd all form an angry mob at the Starbucks nearest to the Post offices and send e-mails to Marcus Brauchli and Katharine Weymouth.

I was born on a Dublin street where the royal drums did beat
And the loving English feet walked all over us,
And every single night when me father'd come home tight
He'd invite the neighbors outside with this chorus:

Oh, come out you black and tans, Come out and fight me like a man
Show your wife how you won medals down in Flanders
Tell her how the IRA made you run like hel away,
From the green and lovely lanes in Killeshandra

Come tell us how you slew
Them ol' Arabs two by two
Like the Zulus they had spears and bows and arrows,
How you bravely faced each one
With your sixteen pounder gun
And you frightened them poor natives to their marrow.

Please put Crouch up front. Please, especially if Gooch is back there. Crouch would be broken in half.

And before ya start off with the 2-0 friendly loss . . here was the US roster for that game . . . much has changed and four of those players (Beasley, Wolff, Pearce, and Johnson) won't even make the squad for South Africa.

Perhaps its well that the Irish didn't make it, or we'd have to consider whether they rightly belonged with us in the Angloshpere or, on the other hand, grouped with Algeria among the "Wretched of the Earth" (ref. Frantz Fanon) or with Slovenia among Communists or Nazi collaborators.

I stupidly made the kids' next dental appointment for the same date as US-SLV. Thank goodness I have 6 months to change it. Need to get one of those interworldwide phones to check my calendar.

Weird piece by Steinberg on so many fronts: 1. Lohman is interviewed about her fantasy job, not her real one, 2. 90% of Redskins fans think they're qualified to be the GM, 3. does anyone care about that - other than the woman-who-wants-to-be-an-NFL-GM stretch?

I finally got around to looking at the wood-based version of the Post. Goff filed articles on both the WC draw and Klockner. In addition, the entire back page (D10) is taken up with thumbnail sketches of the eight groups. You should be able to find them all via the links at the top of this thread, or by searching under "goff".

Goff's made some interesting picks in his draw analysis: Ghana (haven't been impressive for my money) over Serbia and the Aussies); then he goes with the opposite logic, taking highly organized Denmark over the athletic Indomitable Lions of Cameroon; and Ivory Coast over Portugal. I might change my mind over the next 7 months, but right now I'd go the other way in each game (though I was impressed with the Danish organization against the USA).

We fired our guns and the British kept a-coming.
There wasn't as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began a-running
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
HO!

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | December 5, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

-----

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Col. Jackson down the mighty Mississip'
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans

Chorus:
We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

We looked down the river and we see'd the British come
And there must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drums
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring
We stood behind our cotton bales and didn't say a thing

(Chorus)

Ol' Hickory said we can take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we look 'em in the eyes
We held our fire till we see'd their faces well
Then we opened up the squirrel guns and really gave 'em...well...

(Chorus)

Well they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where the rabbits wouldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round
We filled his head with cannonballs and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind!

(Chorus)

Well they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where the rabbits wouldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico...

Its quite unfortunate that the burning of Washington was in the war of 1812. It's okay we won that one too.

Anyway, if anyone happens to be at home pretending to write a public administration research paper for a class and was watching the USA, Brazil u17 match they will know that we are still a struggling footballing nation. Brazil is just so much better tactically and technically.

Listen, I think we are making great strides but we still have so far to go.

We had some good athletes though...... (something I despise. We focus to much of athleticism and not ball control).

But the War of 1812 was a draw, according to all the books I've read. Of course, a draw was good enough for the Americans, since their principal war aim was to get Britain to treat them with respect, which it did thereafter. And a draw would be enough for the Americans this time too, but I still don't think they're going to get one.

But the War of 1812 was a draw, according to all the books I've read. Of course, a draw was good enough for the Americans, since their principal war aim was to get Britain to treat them with respect, which it did thereafter. And a draw would be enough for the Americans this time too, but I still don't think they're going to get one.

===
Why don't we settle this on the seas? Let's each send out our oldest commissioned naval vessel, and the nation who's ship still floats when the sun sets can have the three points. If both do, we'll call it a draw.

Pitting the HMS Victory versus the USS Constitution seems like a good way to solve this matter, no?

Dimes: You've got your wish, albeit a bit late for that match. I tuned in just in time to see a penalty snuffed deep into second-half stoppage time. You can fill us in on the intervening two hours, I'm sure.

The actual naval history of the 1812 war was something like this: The USN was far better than the Brits expected, and scored some notable victories with their heavy and not-so-heavy frigates against matched or slightly lighter vessels. The British then got their "revenge" in the Shannon vs Chesapeake, which they claimed evened the score, though it didn't really.

Meanwhile the Americans were outfighting the Brits on the great lakes. Their land commanders wasted this naval victory, however.

Worse for the US, all this time, the giant British navy was interdicting US commerce, with help from privateers out of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Blockade is all about the number of ships you have, and obviously Britain couldn't be matched on that front. The US govt's revenue, depending largely on trade tariffs, fell away to almost nothing as soon as the war started.
Also, most of the (very successful) US commerce raiders were eventually hunted down and destroyed.

The crushing of US commerce, to which the Americans had no possible answer (they had zero ships of the line) was the main reason why, despite the British defeat at New Orleans, the peace terms declared the status quo ante bellum.

Something the Americans always forget is that the 1812 war was a secondary theatre to Britain, which was locked in a life-or-death struggle with Napoleon at the time. Wellington, for example, was fighting in Spain in 1812. When Napoleon was beaten and exiled to Elba in 1814, the Americans hastened to make terms, before the full weight of British power could be turned against them. Luckily for them, their negotiators were in Britain and knew how war-weary the British public was. The bankrupt Brits were happy to settle for a draw, and it's just as well they didn't commit large forces to press for victory in America, since Napoleon escaped from Elba the following year.

Sorry to bang on about 1812 on a footie blog, but others seem interested.

Waterloo - Couldn't be safe if I wanted to
Waterloo - Knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo - Finally facing my Waterloo
Waterloo - Knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo - Finally facing my Waterloo